[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes, this was the crux of the problem. There is absolutely nothing logical or philosophical about the responses (the QM post comes close, but not quite). The original post about this was not meant as an end-all, beat-all argument, but more as a topic to discuss.

All right, then, um..

I do not ever make a conscious choice between eating food and not eating food. According to the laws of nature, the cells in my body will begin to die without a constant supply of energy (in the form of glucose). So, I eat food. I do not eat it because I actively set out to eat it. Just a few examples for contemplation.

How then could you explain the monks who deprive themselves for spiritual enlightenment or those who suicide? If everything is determined by the laws of nature, which state that things want to survive, then they cannot be explained. They can, however, if you postulate that the people involved have free will.
If you postulate that they do not have free will, and do so as a result of social and economic pressures, then you must also explain why most people don't.
If you postulate that people do what they do because of their genetic makeup and how they were raised, then you must also address how the child of a child beater will often not become a child beater him- or her- self, despite the very strong tendency for the furtheration of the parents' habits that is known to exist.